OFB, along with AFBF and 17 other state Farm Bureaus, submitted a “friend of the court” brief in support of the private landowner petitioners in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court found the taking of private property in the Kelo matter constitutional and arguably expanded the scope of the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court ruled the takings constitutional because it would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals. The Court further interpreted “public use” broadly to include “public purpose.” The Court gave deference to the city’s determination that the city in general was distressed and in need of economic development, albeit not blighted. Collectively, the addition of new jobs and increased tax revenue, along with a carefully formulated development plan that was authorized by state statute, was deemed a legitimate public purpose.

Justice Stevens wrote the Court’s majority opinion, with Justice Kennedy concurring. Justice O’Connor wrote a very strong dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.